1. The Defendant against the Plaintiff A with respect to KRW 150,496,747, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D respectively and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) around May 18, 2010, E parked a vehicle F of the Gan Swen Swen (hereinafter “Gan Sea”) on the alleyway for a house that is not distinguished from the delivery of the studio in front of the Gan-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and the vehicular road. Although there was a duty of care to operate the brake system so as not to put the vehicle out, so as not to cut off the vehicle, and to fix the other wheels of the vehicle so as not to cut off the vehicle, E, despite the fact that the above Ganwe had been released due to the negligence of manipulating the Gan Swelth, and the above Gan was released, and the Plaintiff Ga walking along the edge of the above Ganbn's Gan-dong, which was driven along the edge of the Gan-gu, the front part of the Plaintiff Ganbn-gu, who walked along the edge of the Gank.

(hereinafter “the instant accident”). The said Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the heat, etc. around the right sleep.

(2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and D are their children, and the Defendant is the insurer of the sea vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the result of the commission of document forwarding to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiffs as the insurer of the damage vehicle.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff A could avoid harming cars at the time of the accident of this case in full view of the distance from which the harming vehicle was lowered, the situation and location at the time of the accident.

In the event that the plaintiff A, at the time of the accident, knew or could have known the fact that the plaintiff A got off the slope, it is difficult to deem that the above plaintiff had the duty to avoid the navigational vehicle. Thus, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the circumstances that the above plaintiff knew or could have known of the fact that the plaintiff A knew or could have known of the sloping vehicle, and it is otherwise recognized.